[governance] The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC Perspective?

Fri Oct 12 02:46:56 EDT 2012

Thanks Milton for your comments and few back to you as well.

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein

I should say that both of these reports are very interesting and contain a
wealth of good information, however, the problem that I have with them and
particularly the second report is that it so clearly starts off with its
policy conclusion and builds a case to support this.

[Milton L Mueller] moan. Yes, indeed. This is a commissioned study, by a
consultancy that is in the business of serving the interests of its clients.
The substance of the study is not terrible, it makes the standard case for
the Internet model as we know it. But still, as someone who does real
scholarly studies, I am always irritated by the fact that these kinds of
paid-for pieces get 1,000 times more attention than an honest, objective
scholarly study, and that even purportedly critical scholars such as
yourself seem to take them more seriously than real research simply because
it's easier to read and because it arrives on your virtual doorstep so
easily and quickly via a publicity machine that generates "buzz" 

[MG>] Well yes, except that my intention was not "academic" or "scholarly"
but rather to make a critical comment on a "politically" significant
document--i.e. one that will likely (and certainly was intented to)  be read
by political/policy influentials who are very unlikely to come across a
scholarly piece however well structured its methodology or execution. The
point wasn't that it was bad "research" but rather it was ideology
purporting to be research.

>From what I am seeing (and Kende's report is as good a signal as any) the
Internet biggies are running a bit scared (the term "moral panic" comes to
mind) as to what "madness" might come out of the WCIT meeting that the ITU
is hosting in December in Dubai. 

[Milton L Mueller] As I have argued elsewhere, it is a bit of a panic, and
one that has succeeded in stampeding a lot of public interest groups into it
as well.

[MG>] Yes, but likely  something of some sort will happen or be made to
attempt to happen at WCIT and it is useful to have some insight into what
the various players might be thinking (although if one assumes the necessary
irrationality of any position that doesn't start from a total and religious
commitment to ubiquitous "free competitive markets") there probably isn't
any point.

And they are pulling out all the stops in trying to derail any real
discussion on how the costs and benefits might be allocated of
improving/extending Internet access in and into LDC's and within LDC's to
the other 99% or so in those countries who currently have no possible means
of access. This is of course because the ITU as the traditional venue for
global telecom "governance" includes among its 195 or so Member States a
very goodly proportion, probably a majority, who are currently experiencing
net costs (including many regimes who see these costs in terms of lost
political control) from Internet access and paticularly if attempts at
extending access to rural and maginalized populations are taken into
consideration, rather than net benefits and not surprisingly they are
looking at ways of righting that balance.

[Milton L Mueller] The problem with your perspective, Michael, is that it
does indeed represent the classic telecom monopoly perspective which is
often held by the governmental Ministries and national telecom monopolies in
LDCs. Basically they see international traffic not as an industry that
supplies goods and services that benefit the consumers who pay for them, but
as a source of monopoly rents that can be soaked to "distribute" wealth to
their favored businesses and political causes. This concern with "equitable
distribution" inevitably ends up both being massively inefficient and thus
stifling growth, while not even achieving equity either, because it will
always be a few privileged, well-connected businesses and politicians who
benefit from setting up the national toll booths. 

[MG>] I know that is your position Milton, which at that level of
ideological pandering/name calling is no different from Kende's argument and
we hear it often enough.  What I would very much like to see though, is some
evidence to back it up. What I'm curious to see, and that was the point of
my original note, is some research/analysis which starts not from a
definition of "benefits" as dictated by Google, Microsoft, and Uncle Tom
digerati and all but rather one which starts from the quite specific policy
contexts and dilemmas of the folks in LDC's who seem to be bearing a rather
large amount of short term cost in the service of purported long term
benefit (and not incidentally alongside rather significant short term
benefits adhering to already extremely well provided for DC beneficiaries).
And if they don't publicly object I will,  not all of those folks or dare I
say even most (countering again some ideological and even should  I say
xenophobic posturing rather than systematic analysis and research on your
part) are as you imply, corrupt and despotic. 

I myself am of two minds on this issue.  I well recognize the value/benefits
that could flow from Internet access even to the poorest of the poor and the
overwhelming benefits that Internet access provides to those for example in
civil society who can take advantage of its more or less unlimited free flow
of communications and information (including through undermining various
repressive political regimes). On the other hand, the unlimited unregulated
policy environment advocated by reports like that of Kende and others of
that ideological ilk would I think, lead almost directly to a further
enrichment of the already stupendously wealthy and overall a signifcant
transfer of wealth and benefit from those with the least to those with the
most.

[Milton L Mueller] I am glad you are honest about this two-mindedness.
Factually, there is just no way around it. The liberalization and
deregulation of telecommunications has massively increased access, decreased
costs, increased diversity and innovation. 

[MG>] For some certainly, but I'm wondering who have been the net
beneficiaries and whether those who haven't benefited directly have in fact
borne some of the cost of those benefits. I don't know, maybe they have,
maybe they haven't but neither Kende or you have offered much beyond
ideology and bluster in that regard.

The internet never would have happened without it. I know it provides
cognitive dissonance for some people, but all you have to do is compare the
penetration and price of ICTs before and after liberalization and the
contrast will be very, very stark. True, there have been pitfalls here and
there, usually due to remnants of monopoly power or not handling the complex
transition from monopoly to competition properly, but on the whole the
progress has been revolutionary. 

[MG>] You are probably right but I would like a bit more evidence than your
assertion and I would also like some analysis of the costs involved and also
an analysis of how those costs (and benefits) have been and are being
distributed and then an analysis of what might be required to ensure that
there has been some benefits distributed beyond the usual cast of
characters.  I know that you and I have benefited but I'm rather less sure
about the folks living in Khayalitcha and even less for the cattle herders
in Burkina Faso and I mean now not in a never never land future. And as an
outcome I'ld like to see an analysis which isn't zero sum (regulation or no
regulation) as you seem to suggest is necessary. Rather the question shoud
be what sort of regime (without regulation and or with what type of
regulation of what elements of the overall Internet technical ecology).

Mike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121012/2460e706/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t